A critical analysis of player turnover

[m1c]

Hopefully this isn't missed in amongst the analysis of this weeks game.

As a Broncos fan I've been fairly disappointed with many of the decisions made regarding our playing roster over the last few years. This has led me to conclude only one thing: our footballing department is run by incompetent muppets with little foresight.

Whoever is involved has shown a continuous inability to adequately manage a professional rugby league team. The fact that we are entering season 2010 with only 4 contracted players over 25 years of age (5 if you count Williams, but he'll be lucky to play even 5 games) speaks volumes. What about the number of players over 22 years of age? Well there's only 3 more of them.

Those responsible have shown an obvious lack of future planning and a distinct misunderstanding of the growth and expansion needed to be undertaken in order to remain competitive. It is a complete mismanagement of our playing roster and IMO a monumental fark up that experienced players such as Thorn and Hannant and were shown the door. Not only this, but a cataclysmic dearth of communication and people skills saw players such as Petero, Clinton, Hunt and Taylor depart.

Don't mistake me, the confidence shown in our youth is heartening. However it is misguided without some experienced and composed heads to both show the way and - even more importantly IMO - enforce a culture and set standards productive to a healthy football club.

Not only does this detract from the holistic development of our young stars, but it also increases the chances of below par performances both on and off the field.

What is everyones take on the management of our playing roster over the last few years?

 

[Charmamba]

F**K Taylor his name should not be anywhere near a topic regarding "silly releases" when he signed for the Rabbits he did not belong in a Brisbane Jumper!!

Hannant - I think Coxy said it , he was bound to go anyway. he has no loyalty to clubs and for that he doesnt have my respect.

Hunt - He wanted a new challange he has done everything in RL almost so good on him for trying something no other player has done.

Petro - Well yeah that was a F**K up.

Thorn - Didnt he wanna go anyway?

Clinton - Bigger Offer wanted some money we let him go, No Point keeping someone who doesnt wanna play for you.


Now look at the youngsters we have comming thru and how about you look to the future. There is a bright future at Brisbane.

 

[ningnangnong]

Clinton and Petero are the only ones that we really lost through our own doing.

Apparently we didn't want Clinton, and there was a lack of communication with Petero.

 

[m1c]

You kind of missed my point.. However in rebuttal to what you said:

Taylor - his departure was a product of inadequate communication between player, coach and football department as well as money.

Hannant - wanted to stay.

Hunt - unimpressed with his treatment by management.

Thorn - wanted to stay, would have signed for next to nothing.

Clinton - unimpressed with management.

You'll notice I did leave out Boyd (unavoidable, would have been kept if management knew Hunt was leaving) and Ennis (one of the few good decisions, paving way for a cheaper and just as talented option in Macca)

 

[Charmamba]

Boyd would have followed Benny!!

Hunt wanted to try something new.

You talk about Brisbane not looking to the future yet you wanted to keep ageing Thorn?



Taylor... Get him the F**K out of this convo... he was a fat lazy prick who did not deserve a contract untill after he had signed with the Rabbits. If it wasnt for his form end of yr and Bruno kept him youd be bitching that we spent money on a useless twat.

 

[m1c]

Again, you have missed the point. This thread wasn't made to bemoan the loss of players. That has been covered time and time again throughout the forum and I, as well as many others I'm sure, don't want continue it. I mentioned examples only to highlight what I thought - moving forward and given the benefit of hindsight - were poorly thought out decisions.

Obviously playing rosters are dynamic in nature - there will always be turnover and unpopular decisions along with sacrifices must be made for the greater good of the club. This discussion was primarily intended to question why our current footballing department is seemingly undervaluing the key role and positive impact experienced players have on club performance, culture, development, standards and morale both on and off the field.

After the first half performance of our boys tonight I don't expect too many will agree with me. However, a week is a long time in football.

 

[Charmamba]

But to point out what you see as "Poorly thought out decisions" you brought up players have let go. So in reality this does come across as you complaining about the loss of players..

And imo its not the "football department" undervaluing the experienced players but those experienced players Over rating their worth that have caused us to have so many players go. I for one do not want to see our Club pay overs for players that are in it for money. We have some young guys comming thru who are indeed the future of this great club.

 

[Kaz]

Clinton and Petero are the only ones that we really lost through our own doing.

Apparently we didn't want Clinton, and there was a lack of communication with Petero.

There was no lack of communication with Petero.

It was either his manager or Petero what stuffed the club around.

 

[Charmamba]

if i remember right it was always his Manager. But thumbs down to Petro for not stepping in and telling his manager to stfu.

 

[Bucking Beads]

You kind of missed my point.. However in rebuttal to what you said:

Taylor - his departure was a product of inadequate communication between player, coach and football department as well as money.

Hannant - wanted to stay.
Hunt - unimpressed with his treatment by management.

Thorn - wanted to stay, would have signed for next to nothing.

Clinton - unimpressed with management.

You'll notice I did leave out Boyd (unavoidable, would have been kept if management knew Hunt was leaving) and Ennis (one of the few good decisions, paving way for a cheaper and just as talented option in Macca)

Hannant wanted too much, Greedy Mormon. Why would he need so much money anyway he doesn't even drink!!

 

[Bull Shark]

Hopefully this isn't missed in amongst the analysis of this weeks game.

As a Broncos fan I've been fairly disappointed with many of the decisions made regarding our playing roster over the last few years. This has led me to conclude only one thing: our footballing department is run by incompetent muppets with little foresight.

Whoever is involved has shown a continuous inability to adequately manage a professional rugby league team. The fact that we are entering season 2010 with only 4 contracted players over 25 years of age (5 if you count Williams, but he'll be lucky to play even 5 games) speaks volumes. What about the number of players over 22 years of age? Well there's only 3 more of them.

Those responsible have shown an obvious lack of future planning and a distinct misunderstanding of the growth and expansion needed to be undertaken in order to remain competitive. It is a complete mismanagement of our playing roster and IMO a monumental fark up that experienced players such as Thorn and Hannant and were shown the door. Not only this, but a cataclysmic dearth of communication and people skills saw players such as Petero, Clinton, Hunt and Taylor depart.

Don't mistake me, the confidence shown in our youth is heartening. However it is misguided without some experienced and composed heads to both show the way and - even more importantly IMO - enforce a culture and set standards productive to a healthy football club.

Not only does this detract from the holistic development of our young stars, but it also increases the chances of below par performances both on and off the field.

What is everyones take on the management of our playing roster over the last few years?

My faith in this forum is temporarily restored .. [eusa_clap.gi

M1c, I started a thread looking ahead to 2011 and how the Broncos would handle the rare situation of having salary cap money to spend and a playing roster that for the first time in this club's proud history, has glaring deficiencies that imo rule it out in terms of being a genuine shot at winning the premiership.

They've made their bed, so to speak, with the decisions you pointed out.. Now its a matter of how they intend to strengthen this club through some all too rare cleverness in the player market.

 

[ningnangnong]

You kind of missed my point.. However in rebuttal to what you said:

Taylor - his departure was a product of inadequate communication between player, coach and football department as well as money.

Hannant - wanted to stay.

Hunt - unimpressed with his treatment by management.

Thorn - wanted to stay, would have signed for next to nothing.

Clinton - unimpressed with management.

You'll notice I did leave out Boyd (unavoidable, would have been kept if management knew Hunt was leaving) and Ennis (one of the few good decisions, paving way for a cheaper and just as talented option in Macca)

I'll give you Taylor and Clinton, but not the rest.

Hannant left because he got offered a whopping deal by the Bulldogs, something we just couldn't contend with.

Hunt left because he wanted to play AFL or some crap. The only way he could be 'unimpressed with management' would be from his punishment for bringing the club's name into disrepute. His punishment was fully deserved in that case.

Thorn was past it. Glad we didn't offer him another contract.

 

[shadow]

what were you doing writing this when the game was on

 

[Professor47]

I agree with some of your points M1c and there is no doubt the exodus of Broncs players post 2006 is staggering. The old moved on so that is that but particularly the ones after 08 is a big one I guess.
Coincidence or not I think there is a bit of bad luck involved in here -
Generally speaking:

1) Hannant - wanted to stay and there was a decent offer and everything was sweet but the dogs offered him an "over-price" (supposedly 350-400kish) which was a business decision by them because they wanted to start fresh. The offer was too good to refuse. Unfortunate but fair enough IMO.

2) Ennis - same as above (but no way near as much offered I'm assuming) + journeyman and with Wayne leaving it was probably an easier decision for him. From what I know the Broncs didn't push for him anyway.

3) Stagg - Reading between the lines it seems Stagg wasn't a part of IH's plans. Broncs were happy to let him go weren't they?...

4) Eastwood = bulked up super league deal / fair enough.

 

[Bull Shark]

what were you doing writing this when the game was on

Some people have the ability to watch a game of football and see a bigger picture than the tiny section in the bottom left hand side that tells the score.

 

[Coxy]

Hannant - wanted to stay.

No, he didn't. He walked into Bruno's office with a $300K per year offer from the Bulldogs and said "match it"...Bruno couldn't. Hannant walked.

He's a scummy money hungry mercenary and is no loss.

 

[shadow]

what were you doing writing this when the game was on

Some people have the ability to watch a game of football and see a bigger picture than the tiny section in the bottom left hand side that tells the score.

wow, evolution at play.

though some people have the ability to relax and holster the keyboard for the highly anticipated first game of the season.

 

[m1c]

Fair enough, I'm not really interested in discussing why players left. More interested in getting peoples thoughts on why we have a dearth of experience as I feel this is really going to hurt us throughout the year.

Sure you are going to shed players. What I'm complaining about is the lack of foresight our management has showed in filling the huge void in experience left by the departures of Petero, Thorn, Carroll, Clinton, Hannant and Stagg in the space of two seasons. Understandably you can't keep them all, but surely common sense says you keep 1 or 2 or outsource experience from somewhere else..

Yes, we have a young squad bursting at the seams with potential. IMO all the more reason why a few old heads around the place are needed for reasons I've mentioned above.